Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dashel 537

The problem with 'retina' is that Apple uses pixel doubling (no increase in information) and MS does not. Both have pros/cons but you aren't going to see a fix in future versions as MS doesn't utilize the scaling tricks Apple does.

As far as apps go, anything over 150% is a outside MS's guidelines anyway. (Default for retina is 144dpi - try using the 'WinXP scaling' option so bitmaps aren't so stretched)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Aergan 621

Up to who wrote it and what standards they decided to follow or make up I'm afraid. Lots of applications that support high DPI and many that really should by now that don't. Heck, even Windows NT 6.X doesn't scale all that well when it comes to the system tray icons.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AJerman 762

If you're waiting for Windows to manage DPI scaling properly, you're gonna be waiting a while it seems like. As screens get higher and higher resolution, and applications like HTPC become more prevalent, I kept thinking they'd take care of it one day, but to this day it's still absolutely horrible. With the resolution screens are starting to run now though, I can't imagine they can ignore it in the next release of Windows. Pixel doubling may be just a simple trick to display to a high resolution screen clearly without actually utilizing the extra pixels, but at least it works. With Windows you get fonts falling off all over, buttons sized weird, etc. And it's not just applications written poorly, it's the OS too. The Superbar in Windows 7 doesn't even work properly in high DPI mode (stays on top full screen in some apps). This is one of the most massively neglected parts of Windows that has been bothering me for a long time. I use my computer plugged into a TV from 10 feet away, and while I have 20/20 vision and it's a 50" screen so I can read most things, I still have to squint or use the magnifier at times. Oh what I'd do for an OS that handles DPI scaling better.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

torrentthief 311

I think you can choose the scaling eg 100%, 125%, 150% and 200% on win8. It supposedly works well. 3rd parties are to blame for the apps that aren't made to work with hidpi displays though. There are very few displays in use so there isn't much incentive to change things at the moment for most developers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Aergan 621

I think you can choose the scaling eg 100%, 125%, 150% and 200% on win8. It supposedly works well. 3rd parties are to blame for the apps that aren't made to work with hidpi displays though. There are very few displays in use so there isn't much incentive to change things at the moment for most developers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theyarecomingforyou 8,864

Microsoft really needs to move over to vector art and allow users to freely scale the interface to their choosing (within reason) - by default it should scale according to physical size. Icons that currently change appearance dependent upon their size could be handled with transition points. Not only is such a change important for high-DPI displays but it's even an issue at the moment:

30" - 101 DPI - 2560x1600

27" - 109 DPI - 2560x1440

24" - 94 DPI - 1920x1200

22" - 90 DPI - 1680x1050

That means the Windows UI changes physical size depending on the display that you have, which is terribly inconsistent. By default Windows 8 uses 125% scale for my 30" display, which makes everything appear too large. Therefore I prefer to use 100% scale, which is a bit smaller than I would like. Using a custom scale looks terrible, as icons appear aliased and UI elements don't scale smoothly.

Apple has a huge advantage over Microsoft in that it controls the hardware as well as the software. Microsoft's only option is to implement a more flexible approach and vector art is the obvious way to achieve that. There was talk that Microsoft was working on this years ago - back when Vista was still in development - but unfortunately it was dropped. Now Microsoft has fallen behind. Metro is designed with alternative DPIs in mind but unfortunately it's not a replacement for desktop applications.

4 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jose_49 439

Microsoft really needs to move over to vector art and allow users to freely scale the interface to their choosing (within reason) - by default it should scale according to physical size. Icons that currently change appearance dependent upon their size could be handled with transition points. Not only is such a change important for high-DPI displays but it's even an issue at the moment:

30" - 101 DPI - 2560x1600

27" - 109 DPI - 2560x1440

24" - 94 DPI - 1920x1200

22" - 90 DPI - 1680x1050

That means the Windows UI changes physical size depending on the display that you have, which is terribly inconsistent. By default Windows 8 uses 125% scale for my 30" display, which makes everything appear too large. Therefore I prefer to use 100% scale, which is a bit smaller than I would like. Using a custom scale looks terrible, as icons appear aliased and UI elements don't scale smoothly.

Apple has a huge advantage over Microsoft in that it controls the hardware as well as the software. Microsoft's only option is to implement a more flexible approach and vector art is the obvious way to achieve that. There was talk that Microsoft was working on this years ago - back when Vista was still in development - but unfortunately it was dropped. Now Microsoft has fallen behind. Metro is designed with alternative DPIs in mind but unfortunately it's not a replacement for desktop applications.

+1.

Totally agreed. Having vectors, instead of pixels will allow the UI to be scaled or downscaled at the user's decision.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

George P 2,418

Totally agreed. Having vectors, instead of pixels will allow the UI to be scaled or downscaled at the user's decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm sure that's just what they do, to a extent, with the new metro UI and apps. The start screen and all the other new UI elements scale automatically depending on the size of your screen and apps can as well. MS had a nice long blog post about this iirc.

That said, the problem is that the old desktop side of things doesn't do this, at this point. I dunno what they'll do with it going forward but at some point the desktop as we know it won't be around.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AJerman 762

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm sure that's just what they do, to a extent, with the new metro UI and apps. The start screen and all the other new UI elements scale automatically depending on the size of your screen and apps can as well. MS had a nice long blog post about this iirc.

That said, the problem is that the old desktop side of things doesn't do this, at this point. I dunno what they'll do with it going forward but at some point the desktop as we know it won't be around.

Only one big problem with Metro. It scales and all automatically, but you don't get much control over it. Scaling to a 1920x1080 screen is nice and all, but when I'm 10 feet away and need it a little bigger to read text, you can't really change that in Metro without having to set ease of access settings to "I'm blind". If anything Windows 8 just made DPI scaling even worse because now the desktop and metro both act differently and neither do a good job.

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The_Decryptor 1,088

The problem with 'retina' is that Apple uses pixel doubling (no increase in information) and MS does not. Both have pros/cons but you aren't going to see a fix in future versions as MS doesn't utilize the scaling tricks Apple does.

As far as apps go, anything over 150% is a outside MS's guidelines anyway. (Default for retina is 144dpi - try using the 'WinXP scaling' option so bitmaps aren't so stretched)

Apple doesn't use pixel doubling unless the app simply doesn't support high DPI modes, and in that case the results match Windows (It does the scaling within the DWM in that case)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mrp04 221

I really don't see the issue with Windows. It's supported scaling fine since Vista, it's just the programs that have yet to support it. Most of Microsoft's programs support high DPI modes. Yes some of the built in management tools don't but I personally don't think that's a huge issue (though I do believe it should be fixed for the next version of Windows). Most people don't ever go into those nooks and crannies of the OS and they're still usable, even though they're a bit blurry if you don't scale to 200%.

My Windows system tray icons in Windows 7 and 8 look fine on 150% on my HTPC. What is the issue you are all having? Third party programs often have only standard DPI icons, but I hide everything other than network, volume, and battery anyways. All the built in windows programs in the start menu support high DPI and so does Microsoft Office and all the latest web browsers.

The problem with 'retina' is that Apple uses pixel doubling (no increase in information) and MS does not. Both have pros/cons but you aren't going to see a fix in future versions as MS doesn't utilize the scaling tricks Apple does.

As far as apps go, anything over 150% is a outside MS's guidelines anyway. (Default for retina is 144dpi - try using the 'WinXP scaling' option so bitmaps aren't so stretched)

If you set it to 200% then Windows will do pixel doubling. Pixel doubling is just 200% scaling. When scaled to 200% then one pixel turns into 4 pixels and looks better than anything that isn't an integer multiple. Apple supports non pixel-doubling mode in their latest OS, too. They function pretty much the same in terms of scaling.

According to this page on MSDN, Microsoft recommends having images for 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200%.

Microsoft really needs to move over to vector art and allow users to freely scale the interface to their choosing (within reason) - by default it should scale according to physical size. Icons that currently change appearance dependent upon their size could be handled with transition points. Not only is such a change important for high-DPI displays but it's even an issue at the moment:

30" - 101 DPI - 2560x1600

27" - 109 DPI - 2560x1440

24" - 94 DPI - 1920x1200

22" - 90 DPI - 1680x1050

That means the Windows UI changes physical size depending on the display that you have, which is terribly inconsistent. By default Windows 8 uses 125% scale for my 30" display, which makes everything appear too large. Therefore I prefer to use 100% scale, which is a bit smaller than I would like. Using a custom scale looks terrible, as icons appear aliased and UI elements don't scale smoothly.

Apple has a huge advantage over Microsoft in that it controls the hardware as well as the software. Microsoft's only option is to implement a more flexible approach and vector art is the obvious way to achieve that. There was talk that Microsoft was working on this years ago - back when Vista was still in development - but unfortunately it was dropped. Now Microsoft has fallen behind. Metro is designed with alternative DPIs in mind but unfortunately it's not a replacement for desktop applications.

Why is changing physical size so bad? That's how it's always been, even on Mac OS.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AJerman 762

I really don't see the issue with Windows. It's supported scaling fine since Vista, it's just the programs that have yet to support it. Most of Microsoft's programs support high DPI modes. Yes some of the built in management tools don't but I personally don't think that's a huge issue (though I do believe it should be fixed for the next version of Windows). Most people don't ever go into those nooks and crannies of the OS and they're still usable, even though they're a bit blurry if you don't scale to 200%.

My Windows system tray icons in Windows 7 and 8 look fine on 150% on my HTPC. What is the issue you are all having? Third party programs often have only standard DPI icons, but I hide everything other than network, volume, and battery anyways. All the built in windows programs in the start menu support high DPI and so does Microsoft Office and all the latest web browsers.

If you set it to 200% then Windows will do pixel doubling. Pixel doubling is just 200% scaling. When scaled to 200% then one pixel turns into 4 pixels and looks better than anything that isn't an integer multiple. Apple supports non pixel-doubling mode in their latest OS, too. They function pretty much the same in terms of scaling.

Why is changing physical size so bad? That's how it's always been, even on Mac OS.

I just changed the DPI on my work computer to verify that the same massively annoying bug still exists in Windows 7 DPI scaling. If you change your DPI, the superbar won't ever hide behind an app that's full screen. You have to change the superbar to autohide to get it to go away. This is incredibly annoying on an HTPC that frequently has full screen apps that you don't want to superbar hanging out on. This is more annoying than any of the blurry third party issues. Plus, regardless of who is to blame, there are so many inconsistencies when using high DPI mode in Windows that it's just hard to seriously use. They need to push third parties to update their apps with all these higher resolution screens coming out. It'll be impossible to use an HTPC on a 4k screen without DPI scaling.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mrp04 221

I just changed the DPI on my work computer to verify that the same massively annoying bug still exists in Windows 7 DPI scaling. If you change your DPI, the superbar won't ever hide behind an app that's full screen. You have to change the superbar to autohide to get it to go away. This is incredibly annoying on an HTPC that frequently has full screen apps that you don't want to superbar hanging out on. This is more annoying than any of the blurry third party issues. Plus, regardless of who is to blame, there are so many inconsistencies when using high DPI mode in Windows that it's just hard to seriously use. They need to push third parties to update their apps with all these higher resolution screens coming out. It'll be impossible to use an HTPC on a 4k screen without DPI scaling.

Odd, it hides XBMC, WMC, VLC, and KMP just fine on my HTPC when full-screen. My HTPC is set to 150%. That's both on Windows 7 and on Windows 8 which I just upgraded to a month ago.

Maybe other people use some odd programs but any program I use with regularity seems to scale fine. This is with XP-style scaling deselected (gets deselected by default at 150%). A few programs don't advertise that they are DPI-aware but work fine with XP style scaling (so Vista+ will stretch). For these programs you can revert to XP style scaling individually in the programs compatibility settings.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theyarecomingforyou 8,864

Why is changing physical size so bad? That's how it's always been, even on Mac OS.

Before getting my 30" (2560x1600) display I tried a 27" (2560x1440) display and found the Windows UI elements to be far too small, as I had previously been using a 24" (1920x1200) display. The DPI increase of 15% made everything look noticeably smaller but the 125% scale was too much and using it makes applications - especially Chrome - look very different (not in a positive way).

Displays have been increasing the DPI over the years and we're about to see massive jumps with 4K / 8K displays. Microsoft just hasn't done enough.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mrp04 221

Before getting my 30" (2560x1600) display I tried a 27" (2560x1440) display and found the Windows UI elements to be far too small, as I had previously been using a 24" (1920x1200) display. The DPI increase of 15% made everything look noticeably smaller but the 125% scale was too much and using it makes applications - especially Chrome - look very different (not in a positive way).

Displays have been increasing the DPI over the years and we're about to see massive jumps with 4K / 8K displays. Microsoft just hasn't done enough.

Interesting. I barely notice the change from my 23" 1080p monitor to my 30" 2560x1600 monitor. How has Microsoft not done enough? Windows fully supports scaling. If 125% is too much set a custom scaling. You can change it by individual percentage points. They've been recommending all programs be DPI-aware since Vista came out.

theyarecomingforyou 8,864

That's because that's a jump from 94 DPI to 101 DPI, rather than to 109 DPI. You should have noticed a difference but it wouldn't have been as pronounced as a 27" display.

How has Microsoft not done enough? Windows fully supports scaling. If 125% is too much set a custom scaling.

Because that scaling is pretty nasty. With Windows XP style disabled it's certainly better but a lot of applications will appear blurry - I couldn't put up with it for more than a few minutes. Whereas vector art scales without issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Orry Verducci 1

The key issue on Windows is a lot of applications report to Win32 that they are "DPI Aware", meaning that they tell Windows they are capable of scaling their UIs depending on the DPI, even though they actually can't. It seems to be the default in most development environments (e.g. .Net WinForms, C++ MFC) which means a lot of applications are unintentionally developed with poor DPI support. If they don't report to Windows they are DPI aware, then the system scales the apps in a similar way to how Mac OS treats non-Retina apps.

It doesn't help that most developers work using the standard DPI, and therefore don't realise the issues. I myself have only started recently running my apps in a high DPI virtual machine as part of the testing process. This means a lot of the blame should really be placed in the developers hands (although as mentioned a lot of MS apps are just as guilty). The Win 8 UI was designed to solve this issue, which it does, just as mentioned it can't (yet) be customised.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mrp04 221

That's because that's a jump from 94 DPI to 101 DPI, rather than to 109 DPI. You should have noticed a difference but it wouldn't have been as pronounced as a 27" display.

Because that scaling is pretty nasty. With Windows XP style disabled it's certainly better but a lot of applications will appear blurry - I couldn't put up with it for more than a few minutes. Whereas vector art scales without issue.

This is up to the developer to fix. You don't need vector art which is computationally expensive. If the program developer followed Microsoft guidelines the program would look good. They suggest to have bitmaps for 100%, 125%, 150%, and 200% which are then shrunk to fit sizes in between. Even if vector art was supported, I don't see why the developers who have still not fixed their programs will suddenly update them to support vector art

Programs that are designed to be DPI aware look great. The programs which aren't DPI-aware and when using Vista style scaling will look blurry because you're not increasing them in an integer multiple. There is nothing the OS can do to fix this issue. Take any screenshot with text and put it in an image editor and increase the size by anything other than integer multiples and it will look bad. If you have a really high resolution screen you can set it to 200% and it would look the same as when Mac OS pixel doubles older programs which aren't DPI-aware.

Here is a comparison between 100% and 125%. I think the 125% looks great. The only issue I notice is the Microsoft Word icon in the taskbar. But this is Office 2007, Office 2013 doesn't have this issue and I don't think 2010 does.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theyarecomingforyou 8,864

This is up to the developer to fix. You don't need vector art which is computationally expensive.

It's not just the developer, as not even Microsoft designed elements work properly when you use anything but a few preset scaling options. As for computing power, that's minimal - most elements remain static for the majority of the time they're on screen.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. All the icons are warped - Chrome, Skype and even Paint (a Microsoft app!). And that's with one of the preset scaling options. With vector art you would be able to freely scale the interface and it wouldn't look terrible.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mrp04 221

It's not just the developer, as not even Microsoft designed elements work properly when you use anything but a few preset scaling options. As for computing power, that's minimal - most elements remain static for the majority of the time they're on screen.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. All the icons are warped - Chrome, Skype and even Paint (a Microsoft app!). And that's with one of the preset scaling options. With vector art you would be able to freely scale the interface and it wouldn't look terrible.

Hmm I didn't notice paint. I guess it is a little distorted. Even so, it's still up to the developers to fix this issue. You can't even get them to support 4 presets, you think they will suddenly support vector graphics? If they supported these 4 presets then it should look fine. When I get home I will try some custom scaling options on my 30" monitor and post photos. I think those icons look bad because they're being scaled UP. Scaling down works a LOT better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theyarecomingforyou 8,864

Hmm I didn't notice paint. I guess it is a little distorted. Even so, it's still up to the developers to fix this issue. You can't even get them to support 4 presets, you think they will suddenly support vector graphics? If they supported these 4 presets then it should look fine.

The problem is that preset bitmaps don't have flexibility. What happens when the next resolution bump happens? Then developers will have to maintain 8 different presets. And what happens to all the resolutions that fall inbetween? Then you end up with UI elements that appear different sizes physically (as they appear on screen) or are badly scaled. The point is I can't scale the Windows interface to the size I feel is appropriate and the size I used to have on my previous display. It's far from the end of the world but it's something Microsoft simply hasn't addressed adequately.